Part I
Give a quick skim of Chapter 10 to refresh your memory about how justice is served in Umofia.
What do you see as the benefits and faults in resolving conflicts this way? Does our American justice system have similar or different benefits and faults?
Part II
Consider the events of Chapter 13. (Another quick skim) Okonkwo did not receive a trial, but was handed his punishment immediately. Do you think this was fair? Was his sentence just? (7 years of banishment and burning of his property) Consider the situation from the perspective of the tribe. What advantages did this resolution offer? Should they have done something differently considering that the death was accidental?
(You don't have to answer every single question here, but give a thoughtful response to the overall situation. Also respond to a peer, adding substantial thinking to their reply.)
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteThe justice system in place is similar to ours, but has some noticeable differences. There is a council of people who are high in the clan, and there are some advantages to this. As they are of a higher class, they would probably know much about the religious system, as they had to use it to climb the ranks of the clan in the first place. In order to do this, they also had to attain wisdom, which they attribute the ancestors to, the same ancestors they are portraying. The faults also stem from their rank in the clan. The most notable of which is that they may not be as kind to poor or lower-rank members of the clan, as well as unwelcome outsiders.
Our justice system does not have quite the same failings. While we have class discrimination, it is only one-way: from the poor towards the rich. That sentence is also an example of another fault: prejudice and stereotypes, which is prevalent in larger groups of people such as several cities or entire countries. The only benefit our system shares is the judgement by peers, however of a more diverse group.
Part 2:
His judgement by our standards was not fair or just. However, in the villager's point of view, the immediate judgement and sentence is almost automatically justified under the religious justice system. They believe that the ground must be cleansed, therefore, burn it. He killed a family member. Sure it was accidental, but we do not want to risk the wrath of the gods/ancestors, so banish him just to be safe. Again, from our point of view, none of this was necessary, as we do not share the same beliefs or values. Put in the context of their culture, their reaction was probably the best way.
Christopher~
DeleteI found your thoughts and ideas to be very interesting. I enjoyed your discussion on the advantages of having a council of people who were in a high clan. I agree with you in saying that those men were most likely very knowledgeable in regards to the religious system and had attained great wisdom.
"Put in the context of their culture, their reaction was probably the best way". This sentence perfectly summarizes the way I see the situation. Every society is different, and within each group every person has been conditioned and socialized to see and understand things a certain way. What is normal in some places is not in others. This goes for nearly everything from food to clothes to the justice system.
DeleteI too enjoyed your discussion on the advantages of having a council of people who were in a high clan. Usually men who are higher in position are the ones that have had more experience in the system. I too agree with you in that part.
DeletePart 1: Chapter 10 is devoted to a detailed description of the village's public trial. The beginning paragraphs set the atmosphere and setting to include the imagery given in regards to the egwugwu and Evil Forest. A row of nine stools awaited the appearance of the nine egwugwu, who represented the spirits of their ancestors. A crowd had also gathered around the scene with great anticipation. As the chapter continues, the justice system is played out as the egwugwu come to a verdict to resolve the dispute between this husband and wife (Uzowulu and Mgbafo).
ReplyDeleteThe author provides a close-up view of the community judicial system with its similarities to Western traditions. In this trial between Uzowulu and his wife and her brothers, both sides present their case to the ruling member of their society, the nine egwugwu. These men represent the nine villages within Umuofia. The egwugwu holds a similar position as a jury led by a judge. Many of the positions explained in this chapter resemble that of a similar relation to our court system today. The way in which the village viewed the dispute and handled any disciplinary actions however varied from our current thoughts and actions. "The verdict illustrates the widespread disregard of women's rights by Umuofian men." Upon hearing both sides of the case, the egwugwu ordered Uzowulu to beg for his wife to return from the in-laws and instructed Mgbafo to return upon his begging. The only punishment that Uzowulu received was the embarrassment of begging for his wife to return. Upon begging, he would receive his wife back regardless of any decision that Mgbafo felt led to make. This proved that the Umuofian culture felt that a woman was the property of her husband, but unwarranted violence against her was inappropriate. This trial and its verdict recall Okonkwo's treatment of his own wives and illustrated how quickly such treatment is forgotten. Because of Umuofian's justice system showing extended amounts of mercy and not giving appropriate punishment, these morals and ideals were easily forgotten and caused for similar issues to arise often. Relatable is our justice system today. Although we do have jails/prisons to punish our criminals as well as other tactics, the lifestyle led within these places is somewhat desirable. These men and women have shelter, food, education, sports, and many extracurricular activities that they have offered to them for FREE. If the punishment for these people was less desirable, they might have a higher respect and fear for those in authority.
Part II: This chapter tells the descriptive recount of the death of Ezeudu, a very important man within the village. Achebe uses strong imagery to illustrate the dramatic scene. When Okonkwo fired his gun, it exploded and a piece of iron pierced the Ezeudu's son's heart. Achebe writes, "such an accident has never occurred." Okonkwo and his family are then cast out of the village for seven years and their home, barn, and animals are burned to the ground.
Following the actions of the justice system portrayed in chapter 10, this 'system' seems very contradictory and hypocritical. Okonkwo should have received a trial for this accidental death. His sentence that was given immediately was extremely harsh and displayed no mercy. This punishment strongly contradicts that shown in chapter 10. The village needed to find a balance between following the clan traditions so rigidly and also instilling a healthy fear and respect into the people. As seen through Obierika's perspective, he began to question the rigid form of tradition. The chapter includes several intimations of impending doom for the clan and its traditions. Achebe ends the chapter dramatically with the proverb, "If one finger brought oil, it soiled the others," suggesting that Okonkwo's crime may lead to the ultimate downfall of Umuofia itself.
Well said Lindsey, I like how you explained everything very clearly. I definitely agree that the desirability of some modern correction facilities is indeed in need of heavy revision, I do think that despite the faults of Umuofian's (and Western cultures) justice systems they are still better than other alternatives.
DeleteAdvantages of their justice system is the fear that they able to instill into onlookers, such as women and children. This somehow brings them more respect and less public opposition to their decisions. Disadvantages are that they do not have a hierarchy of courts, and must face both minor issues and major ones. This makes it more difficult for them to qualify and respect the more minor cases. Our justice system is similar in the way that we have judges and a court that makes generally respected decisions, however, we face more diversity and willingness to state our dissatisfaction with the system.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not at all think Okonkwo's punishment was at all fair. However, in a different culture and social life I can see how the peoples reaction would have been much different than mine. Their system certainly did not show mercy, however neither does the American system. We are conditioned to believe in justice, not the merciful lightening of punishments. In our country, a punishment for an accident without trial would be unheard of and not all accepted by society. However, this tribe wanted to prevent any more accidents from happening and thus they had no problem taking extreme but unfair measures.
While I do agree that the justice system in the book did not show mercy, I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that the American system does not show mercy. Your sentence "In our country, a punishment for an accident without trial would be unheard of and not all accepted by society" proves that the American system has mercy: if we do not accept "punishment for an accident without trial," then we believe in mercy. We believe that punishment should depend on the circumstance and should not always be enacted. That's why people receive lesser punishments for committing the same crime as others. Our system tries its best to balance justice and mercy in its decisions.
DeleteI agree with Diego. Many judges on the American system try to keep a decent moral compass. Law in the American system has cases in which it can be interpreted differently, depending on context, in order to better suit the situation, and exception clauses. Not that it's perfect, but, then again, nothing in the corporeal world is. That's another difference between the American system and the Umofia system, in which Umofia laws are made with the intention of being inflexible, especially in cases in circumstances.
DeleteI think of justice and mercy as two separate things, but are meant to intertwine. Justice is similar to "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" thinking, where damage dealt is damage received. Mercy is when forgiveness is given full reins, and there is no punishment. If you are using only justice, you cannot judge situations that require mercy. If you are using only mercy, you cannot be relied upon in situations regarding justice. The villagers thought it was justice to burn Okonkwo's property, but we would see it as devoid of mercy.
DeletePart 1:
ReplyDeleteThe basic idea of justice being held in the hands of few select (or apparently "divine" few) is consistent through out multiple cultures of people. Despite the faults of this system, I still think that it is overall the best approach to the fairest way of governing a people as we can come to.
Part 2:
I do not think that Okonwo's punishment was very fair at all, the tribe should have taken into account the fact that it was an tragic but unavoidable accident, and some mercy should have been shown.
Part 1: The justice system in Umofia is served by a council of “spirits”, which are masked elders from the clan. This justice system hears out both sides of the present parties, and witnesses, and then makes a judgement. This is similar to our justice system in the fact that we have a jury who hears all sides of the story and we call witnesses, but it is difference because the jury in the tribe is all elders or men who are high in the clan. Also, there are no appeals, the spirits word is final. This system is beneficial to this clan in finding justice because their government system is religion based. The elders know the religion and can carry out the justice that the people of the clan expect. It is faulty in abundance of cases brought to the court. Such minor and major claims that could not be deliberated amongst themselves all were brought forward.
ReplyDeletePart 2: I do not think Okonkwo’s punishment was fair. While I understand their distain for killing a clans man, I definitely think they should have at least done a trial for those types of crimes. The advantages of the harsh punishment though, were to let the family grieve without the man who killed their child present. The burning of the property was a bit much though. There probably was a better way to handle that situation, but the culture was used to that way and therefore complied with culture.
This was well said, and you have some very good thoughts on the subject. I agree with you (for part 2) that a trial should have been held, instead of dealing with the punishment the way they did. I also thought it was interesting how you wrote about the advantages of the harsh punishment. This brought a new way to think about the whole thing.
DeletePart 1: The idea that justice can only been held in limited amounts of people benefits majority of the people. Even though it has its flaws, i think it is the best decision to make, if you want to be fair to the people.
ReplyDeletePart 2: I don't think Okonkwo's punishment was fair because the tribe should have given him grace, since it was an accident. I think they should have put more thought into it before punishing him and, a trial should have been held.
I agree with your first point, but your second I respectfully disagree with. I think that regardless of how it happened, it happened. Today if someone is "accidentally stabbed", the person who did it is still punished because a human life was taken, whether it was on purpose or not.
DeletePart 1: One of the benefits of serving justice this way is that it is universally accepted; everyone is familiar and comfortable with the way things are done. Faults include it being terrifyingly easy to bend the rules to people's unwavering faith; the amount of power those people had was staggering. They held so much influence.
ReplyDeletePart 2: I think that Okonkwo's punishment was justified because killing a member of a clan, especially in the setting and time frame, was a huge deal and even if it was an accident, that doesn't mean it didn't happen and the person he killed was undoubtedly mourned over.
I agree that people are responsible for their own actions, but I think all things considered his punishment was harsh, a human life taken is a tragedy and even if it was unintentional you still must take responsibility, some punishment should be given, but I think it was just too much.
DeletePeople should be accountable for their actions because they can reason and decide they are not forced to think a certain way most of the time. Therefore they should be able to face their punishment.
DeletePart I
ReplyDeleteNo system is perfect. The system described in the book has some good attributes:
It is a trial by jury. The trial is conducted in public. The head judge listens to both sides. Witnesses testify.
The system also has some bad attributes:
The judges impersonate the ancestors and are not seen as who they actually are. There is no check on the judicial system, so it can rule with corruption. Women have no part of the system.
The American system has all of the same benefits (plus more), and shares none of the afore mentioned faults. However, no system is perfect, and the American system has its own faults.
Part II
I believe Okonkwo should have had a trial. After all, the death was utterly unintentional. It appears that the tribe had a sentence set just for this occasion. So, I am sure there is reasoning and tradition behind the sentence. But, with this circumstance, it was obvious to the entire tribe that Okonkwo's killing was entirely unintentional. If a trial would have taken place, the people might have looked more mercifully upon Okonkwo. They were afraid of the wrath of their gods, so even with a trial they would still have punished Okonkwo according to their law for fear of their gods. The tribe wanted to ensure that punishment was enacted, even if too heavily. They figured that it is better to punish one family then to risk the punishment of the entire tribe. The tribe did what they thought was right.
Part I
ReplyDeleteThe benefits of their methods are the fast execution of resolving conflicts, without dissent afterwards, due to the sacredness and/or high authority of the egwugwu and the ancestors. Like in the American system, we have the Supreme Court, who are the highest authority in the our justice system, though the seats are neither hereditary or held for life. Continuing with that, the fault of the village's system lies in the lack of checks and balances amongst higher authorities. The Supreme Court, while powerful, are held in check by public opinion. Any abuse of authority can result in public backlash, and may subsequently force the judge to withdraw his seat. Subsequently, the public masses can sway the ruling. But, a fault that remains similar between the two justice systems is unfairness amongst different classes. While richer citizens can afford better-skilled lawyers, lower-class citizens may not. On the other hand, status in Umofia greatly depends on (1): gender, in which women have no say, along with (2) status. Another fault, or benefit, may be that sometimes, rulings in both justice systems rely on moral opinion rather the law. In some cases, this may be a benefit. In some, it may not.
Part II
Was his sentence just? (7 years of banishment and burning of his property) Consider the situation from the perspective of the tribe. What advantages did this resolution offer? Should they have done something differently considering that the death was accidental?
I don't think Okonkwo's lack of trial was fair. Not that it would help much, as the justice system ruled past laws and more into spiritual/moral opinion. His sentence, from the American justice system point of view, was greatly unjust, considering it was an accident. At the very least, it would be debatable. But, then again, in Umofia, evidence seems to run greatly on word-of-mouth and the spirits. From the tribe's perspective, with their great religious beliefs, it was fine, because sacrificing one family to appease the spirits, and, thus, not wreak havoc on the entire tribe, was fine. One life for many, or as J.K. Rowling's Gellert Grindlewald (in Harry Potter) would say, "For the greater good..."
Really interesting commentary on how the tribe does what they think is good for the people but bad for the person accused. They're trying to establish order, but in the process they ruin the few. (Also, A+ Harry Potter tie-in).
DeletePart 1: Obviously the faults of resolving conflicts this way is that decisions are made by a small group of like minded people, people who aren't held accountable by any laws. The advantage of the jury we have today is that people come from different backgrounds and mindsets. A benefit of resolving conflicts this way, however, is that justice is dispersed quickly. Our American justice system has the problem that lot's of criminals walk free because there simply wasn't enough evidence, the innocent until proven guilty policy has it's drawbacks because lot's of violent criminals walk free, but it also has it's benefits in the case that an innocent person is tried. The system is really as perfect as it can be, there are going to be problems because there's really never been any perfect and always 100 percent right way to disperse justice. We don't live in a Utopia, sadly.
ReplyDeletePart 2: I don't think Okonkwo's punishment was fair at all, he should have been shown fairness and given a right try to prove his innocence. From the perspective of the tribe, handing out punishment so quickly and surely is easier, little is left to be questioned and conflicts are resolved quickly, which is good for the tribe, but bad for the accused.
Your insight on the faulty nature of "innocent until proven guilty" was eye opening and brought a perspective I hadn't thought about. I agree completely that, while fast and effective, it does not always end fairly for the accused.
DeletePart 1:
ReplyDeleteThe justice system in place is similar to ours, but with a couple differences. This justice system hears out both sides of the present parties, and witnesses, and then makes a judgement. The beginning paragraphs set the atmosphere and setting to include the imagery given in regards to the egwugwu and Evil Forest. Advantages of their justice system is the fear that they able to instill into onlookers, such as women and children. Disadvantages are that they do not have a hierarchy of courts, and must face both minor issues and major ones. American justice can't get any similar to Utopia.
Part 2:
I Don't think Okonkwo's punishment was just. He should have been opened to the possibility of the person being innocent. I honestly believe that taking this rapid decision might have had the accused in shock but, Okonkwo avoided any conflict.
Part 1: The justice system is similar to ours in many ways but it also has its differences. The justice system is led by a specific group of people that decide what is best fr the whole community. In the clan they do not take the participants into consideration as much as the religion and beliefs.
ReplyDeletePart 2: I do not think his punishment was just because the decision was made rapidly. The people deciding did not take into account the situation but rather what they had been taught before.